run_action

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key behavioral warning: some actions can't be undone (saving, deleting media files). It also prescribes naming the action to the user first, a useful operational guardrail. Missing detail on return values or how the action id/name resolves, but the destructive caveat is the important disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with what the tool does before the usage and safety caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic action-runner with no output schema and complete param coverage, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, and the primary risk. It could say a bit more about the consequence of passing an unknown command id, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'command' parameter already documents that it accepts a numeric id (e.g. 40029) or a named command (e.g. '_SWS_ABOUT'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (runs) and resource (any action from REAPER's action list), and positions itself against the large set of specific siblings by framing itself as the catch-all escape hatch. An agent can immediately tell this is the generic fallback versus the dedicated tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it ('for things the other tools don't cover') and adds a gating condition ('only when the user wants that action'). Both the fallback role and a usage constraint are spelled out rather than left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.